Thanks for the link. I read through the document, and came across these paragraphs:

"Protection granted under this Treaty shall leave intact and shall in no way affect the
protection of copyright or related rights in program material incorporated in broadcasts.
Consequently, no provision of this Treaty may be interpreted as prejudicing such protection."

""Cablecasting" shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks;"

"2.13 Item (g) in Alternative D recognizes the fact that a great majority of Delegations in the
debates in the Standing Committee opposed the extension of the protection to webcasts.
Many Delegations have indicated that further study is needed and have suggested that the
issue of webcasting deserves to be dealt with in future discussions and not in the present
framework."

"6.01 Article 6 contains the provisions on the rights of broadcasting organizations concerning
the retransmission to the public of their broadcasts. The right in respect of retransmission
would provide protection against all retransmissions, by any means, including rebroadcasting
and retransmission by wire, by cable or over computer networks. The expression "exclusive
right of authorizing" has been used, for the sake of consistency with the language of the
WPPT and the WCT, in Article 6 and all subsequent Articles providing for an exclusive right."

"6.04 If, at the end of the day, the negotiating Delegations feel that a more explicit provision in Article 6 on the right of retransmission would be advisable the following wording could be
considered: "Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing
retransmission by any means, including rebroadcasting, retransmission by wire, and
retransmission over computer networks.""

Basically, the entire document is taken up with defining terms, and listing the alternate language for articles. It's a mess that's trying to do the following:

"Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the retransmission
by any means of their broadcasts."

"Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or
indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts."

"The term of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations under this Treaty shall last, at least, until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the
broadcasting took place."

I think this is targeted more toward the commercial re-distribution of broadcasted content, whether it's done live or delayed. In Europe, I know there are a lot pirated satellite dishes, and channels in other countries will pick up content from western channels and show it on their channels, or people will make pirate boxes to pick up encrypted channels. It seems the penalties of this new treaty are meant for such people:

"(2) In particular, effective legal remedies shall be provided against those who:
(i) decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal; (ii) receive and distribute or communicate to the public an encrypted program-carrying signal that has been decrypted without the express authorization
of the broadcasting organization that emitted it; (iii) participate in the manufacture, importation, sale or any other act that makes available a device or system capable of decrypting or helping to decrypt an
encrypted program-carrying signal."

Besides, if you put a lot of money and effort into making broadcast-quality programming, would you want it pirated and stolen and repackaged, whether over the air, cable, or computer networks, without credit, permission or payment given?
I think the treaty's a bunch of gobbledygook, and it's been ruined in committee. The language is terrible, and the people negotiating the treaty aren't clear on the basic definition of what a broadcast is. I also think 50 years is a bit excessive. Maybe 25 years would be enough. But I think stating the rights of these organizations to protect their content is a good thing. When one needs to use broadcasted content, they need to ask for permission, and give credit. I hope these news organizations won't charge an arm and a leg for the right to use the content, but we'll let the market decide that. If it'll be too expensive, it'll sit on their shelves, gathering dust.
So, it's not that I'm lazy. I think the people spouting off in the forum here about how this is a disaster are the lazy ones, because they didn't take the time to do their research.